In theory that maybe right. Here is an example of an image (tight crop). The Relative is very ugly because the shirt is totally ruined. The Perceptual is washed out (hopefully you can see it that from the upper corners).

Hi,

Exactly, this is a good example, and not that uncommon for saturated colors. Letting the profile conversion do its thing will result in either featureless color content when Relative Colorimetric rendering intent is used, or an overall reduction of saturation, also in areas that were originally not in need of correction.

The problem is with the way one wants to, or is able, to address the issue with a bit more intelligence. Only selecting the color tones that will clip, may cause a disconnect with the immediate neighbors of a similar color tone that do not clip. So one typically creates a correction that has some sort of feathering applied for a more gradual transition into non-affected areas. But to do that, a selection of the problem areas is required.

Quote

For me choosing the shirt and tweaking with saturation, hue and lightness in an adjustment layer plus using the Relative gave the best result.

Which brings us back to the original question, of how to select the OOG colors in Photoshop. I suggested one possible method of creating a selection, not only of the pixels that are OOG, but also their OOG magnitude. Relatively small amounts of isolated clipping require less attention than the more severe ones that will cause visual loss of detail.

Quote

Therefore it would be nice to be able to select the out-of-gamut pixels properly.

The method I've suggested earlier (and converting the created Hue difference layer to a selection with a bit of feathering) will allow to do that, but perhaps Andrew or someone else has a better solution (other than not using Photoshop).

I select the RI based on the overall appearance of the soft proof. IF I see something I don't like, I edit IN THE original working space while soft proofing while examining the original with soft proof off. It's all explained and demo'd in the Video's here that Jeff and Michael have created.

<sigh>Thru the whole thread in several posts you have insisted using the ICC profile to convert the data. And now you suddenly write "edit the original working space" (typo? you did mean "edit IN the original working space"?)<sigh2>And the question was: how to select out of gamut colors in Photoshop? (not LR)<sigh3>There are a lot of videos in Lula. Which one do you mean?

Yes, an impression has formed - over time - that there's no need to worry about gamut mapping; the profile will do it for you. Just choose a rendering intent and be done with it. I never agreed with that, and oldfox provided a beautiful example of why not.

So we're all on the same page then?

As for the videos, yes, and they're excellent, but sometimes bandwidth isn't what it should be and it's nice to just hear what people think, instead of having to sit through a whole choppy video.

I tried Bart's suggestion and it seems to work. However I found it easier to make a selection from the "middle" layer. Select -> Color Range -> hit black and tweak with the fuzziness. So you probably dont need the three last steps in the suggestion. Of course it will show you better the OOG pixels. I also created also an action for the whole thing. And that also seems to work.

I tried Bart's suggestion and it seems to work. However I found it easier to make a selection from the "middle" layer. Select -> Color Range -> hit black and tweak with the fuzziness. So you probably dont need the three last steps in the suggestion. Of course it will show you better the OOG pixels. I also created also an action for the whole thing. And that also seems to work.

Thanks Bart for the idea! Have to test it more in practice.

Hi,

You're welcome. Of course it is a bit of a brute force approach to do an actual profile conversion and compare that with the original. A more elegant solution would be helpful, but this does allow to get the job done.